Demo Date

[Kraarug]

To what time period is the demo suppose to be correct?

I Believe that T2A was launched late September or early October 1998 right? If so, that would put the demo, considering the production run to make the CDs somewhere around August or September 1998.

[Derrick]

The demo is defiantely pre-T2A mechanics, especially spellcasting and melee.

I have proposed that the demo, which is really an almost mechanicly complete UO server but with some features either unimplemented or crippled such as boat and house keys, might actually date back to pre beta.

The actual file modification date is Sept 2, 1998; but that is likely the cd press day.

[Kraarug]

self deleted.

[Kraarug]

Thank you Derrick.

The reason why I ask is because I find physical spell casting disruption to be off.

It just seems illogical to me that disruption could affect healing so greatly but apparently have so many checks agaist it for spell casting that it makes it where a mage can stand toe to toe with a dexxer and just cast GH and mini heals long enough to erode a weapons durability and make it nearly trash (A Q-Stave is a great example.)

That is simply off. In OSI’s game that simply was not the case.

I understand that the player template and tactics are much different now, but the fact a mage with GM wrestling can resist interruptions from a GM dexxer with 100 stamina on this shard is perhaps the single most factor that keeps this shard from being a real T2A experience. It completely discounts and entire class of characters.

Dexxers causing interruptions againts mages has always been the reason why I thought OSI made healing such a slow process and coupled the amount a player could heal with two skills (anatomy and healing). Here, the coupled skills and healing interruptions are fully implemented here but the spell disrupption from a 100 stamina dexxer is nerfed.

From those that played during the era, did you ever take your O/C tank mage into town and not fear a dexxer? If you were a dexxer, did any mage stand a chance against in town, or even 1v1 when you were close enough to be toe to toe? (BTW, there was a reason why dexxers owned towns…. They don’t here… and lack of accurate dissruption is why.)

So... my case, besides my memory....

Look at this patch note.... It is dated AFTER the demo release date and shows that OSI DID patch game mechanic formulas without announcing them. It refers to a change in spell casting interruption from a previous patch while any previous patches are mum on such a change.

http://wiki.uosecondage.com/index.php?t ... atch_Notes

Spell casting interruption should now be correct. In the last upadate, a change was made to it which we have determined was not well-balanced. It has therefore been reverted back out.

This means that patch notes should be qualified as a source btw[/quote]

So.. that's the reason I wanted to know the publish date of the demo. I wanted to know what version of decompiled code was used as the basis of our current spell disruption code.

Now, it seems the Demo may not T2A accurate with certain mechanisms. With that being the case, I would like to suggest looking into spell disruption further. It just seems off that players can finally get down to nearly 0 stamina and HPs to just recall away while 2 or 3 dexxers whack on them.

I wonder what the healing disruption code and formula looks like compared to spell casting disruption.

[Kraarug]

Here's a description of PvP in era from qualified source at the time (June 1999).

Notice the description of Mage v. Warrior warfare. What makes it sooo different here? The author seems to be fearing a melee.

http://web.archive.org/web/200105121406 ... vpmage.htm

[Derrick]

While it's an interesting patch note, it's not possible for the demo code to have contained this "unbalanced" error, as the reference to the reversion in Oct 10, is to the previous system of no earlier than 9/16, which are both after the press of the CD. This note is evidence to me that there were no effective changes to disruption between 9/15/1998 (pre-T2A) and 10/2/1998 (T2A)

However, the evidence that they did make the initial change without announcement is compelling and certainly does speak to the possibility of OSI making minor changes to code without notice. Likely secret formulas such spell disruption chance (and this certainly was a secret formula) would have possibly been sensical not to mention.

In terms of analyzing risk factors, I'm not a PvP guru by any means. However, on first read of the referenced article I'd say there are two reasons for the mage to be wary of the warrior. One is running out of mana, which is clearly a fear on UOSA as well; the other is disruption. I don't read this necessarily as the chance of being disrupted, but I read it as the Effect of being disrupted.

We are fairly certain that the Effect of being disrupted is not currently correct on UOSA, and have almost (if not entirely) determined the inaccuracy. I'm currently in a holding pattern on the release of a comprehensive post on this problem, evidence, and solution.

[Kraarug]

While it's an interesting patch note, it's not possible for the demo code to have contained this "unbalanced" error, as the reference to the reversion in Oct 10, is to the previous system of no earlier than 9/16, which are both after the press of the CD. This note is evidence to me that there were no effective changes to disruption between 9/15/1998 (pre-T2A) and 10/2/1998 (T2A)

However, the evidence that they did make the initial change without announcement is compelling and certainly does speak to the possibility of OSI making minor changes to code without notice. Likely secret formulas such spell disruption chance (and this certainly was a secret formula) would have possibly been sensical not to mention.

In terms of analyzing risk factors, I'm not a PvP guru by any means. However, on first read of the referenced article I'd say there are two reasons for the mage to be wary of the warrior. One is running out of mana, which is clearly a fear on UOSA as well; the other is disruption. I don't read this necessarily as the chance of being disrupted, but I read it as the Effect of being disrupted.

We are fairly certain that the Effect of being disrupted is not currently correct on UOSA, and have almost (if not entirely) determined the inaccuracy. I'm currently in a holding pattern on the release of a comprehensive post on this problem, evidence, and solution.

Thank you for the thoughtful post and all your efforts.

Here are some questions:

Have you thought, since the interruption of healing and spell casting is theoretically based on the same action with an an agressor's interruption a given action, to treating these the same?

What really is the difference between a mage getting interrupted and a healer?

What justification would exist to treat these two differently? If anything, I would think a healer would get the better end of the difference because, after all, it is an entire 100 points that is devoted to a single action as a spell is simply one of several facets of a single skill.

[Derrick]

Thank you for the thoughtful post and all your efforts.

You're welcome! Thanks for yours as well.

Have you thought, since the interruption of healing and spell casting is theoretically based on the same action with an an agressor's interruption a given action, to treating these the same?

Absolutely. This was only just fist brought into my mind today in another thread. As I said there the healing "slips" are RunUO default, and I have no more knowledge than that of the correctness of it at this time.

Logically, it makes all the sense in the world to me that the formulas would be similar, and while logic was not often the case in OSI mechanics I belive that without doubt this warrants further research.

[Kraarug]

Derrick,

After reading the entire page of 1998 patches I am getting a much different read now and believe that OSI did communicate their changes.

1/20/98
There will be a chance of the casting aborting if the mage is struck during his casting process. The chance is based on how much damage you took, and your ability at magery.

Then later they write

10/1/98
Spell casting interruption should now be correct. In the last upadate, a change was made to it which we have determined was not well-balanced. It has therefore been reverted back out.

They weren't talking about the last patch in September but the last update to interruption. And that change had the additional modifiers described in 1/20/98

I have a dinner party to prepare for but I'm going to try to find the notes on "IN TESTING". These notes often preceded patches and described what they tried. Some made it to production, some were promised and never came, some out right died.

[Derrick]

Derrick,

After reading the entire page of 1998 patches I am getting a much different read now and believe that OSI did communicate their changes.

They weren't talking about the last patch in September but the last update to interruption. And that change had the additional modifiers described in 1/20/98

My take on the January 20 patch was that prior to this mages could not be interrupted at all.

[Hemperor]

Derrick,

After reading the entire page of 1998 patches I am getting a much different read now and believe that OSI did communicate their changes.

They weren't talking about the last patch in September but the last update to interruption. And that change had the additional modifiers described in 1/20/98

My take on the January 20 patch was that prior to this mages could not be interrupted at all.

this is true

[Kraarug]

Derrick,

After reading the entire page of 1998 patches I am getting a much different read now and believe that OSI did communicate their changes.

They weren't talking about the last patch in September but the last update to interruption. And that change had the additional modifiers described in 1/20/98

My take on the January 20 patch was that prior to this mages could not be interrupted at all.

It is just as likely that they were interrupted like healing. I honestly do not remember a time when mages coudn't get interrupted and can not think of why they would allow healing interruptions but not magery.

I played both character types in T2A and I can tell you that I was interrupted when fighting. I got tired of playing a mage in O/C and having to ICQ friends to see if they were at the bank or in towns so I started a townie.

THere was a reason why dexxers owned towns and got that name. It certainly wasn't for the game play that we see now. On OSI it was much different.

As a poison fencer, the tactic against a mage was to try to survive the mana dump and get some good DP hits in. Then, when the time was right, use a fast dp weapon and watch his hit points drop while they unsuccessfully cast greater heal. They may have gotten one or two off but when they had no stamina left and couldn't run, after getting really low on HPs, it was fairly certain they were going down. A recall at this stage was just a little better than 1 out of 4 chance of success.

[Kraarug]

Derrick,

After reading the entire page of 1998 patches I am getting a much different read now and believe that OSI did communicate their changes.

They weren't talking about the last patch in September but the last update to interruption. And that change had the additional modifiers described in 1/20/98

My take on the January 20 patch was that prior to this mages could not be interrupted at all.

It is much more likely that the formula prior to Jan 20 was like of that healing interruptions. I mean, honestly, why wouldn't it be?

[Kaivan]

I wouldn't necessarily assume that the slip on healing was the same as it was for Magery on the demo. If you take a look at other patch notes from 1/20/98, it shows that Magery underwent a complete skill revision that changed how it originally worked. It does stand to reason that the change which allowed interruption of spellcasting was originally added with this patch, given the entire overhaul that Magery underwent.